User talk:Essjay

User:Essjay/Header
User talk:Essjay/Top User:Essjay/Directory

Feedback

Hey Essjay, by and large I think adminship is going OK, but there have been a couple times where I felt I had to make a judgment call and yesterday was one (BDAbramson corrected me and gave his advise). I'm taking a wikibreak, but I started thinking about another call I made and am starting to doubt. I judged this user, User:Personalattack, to have an inappropriate username (confusing, inflammatroy, whatever). Good or bad call? (Anyway, when I do carry on, I plan to limit myself more to the things I know). Thanks. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfM

Sure, I'll take it, though I don't think I can comply with the request to have it deleted. I'll start once you approve and perhaps get all parties to indicate that they are interested; Jvd's comments don't clearly say whether he's interested or not. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:AIV

Hi, I've placed request on WP:AIV for about 30 mins and no admin has taken a look at it yet. Thanks a lot! --Hurricane111 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, both had already been blocked. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet User:Steven123456

You blocked User:69.214.212.201 and now it seems he's attacking all parties with a sock puppet. See history: User:Steven123456 [1]. Arbustoo 04:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and blocked. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your monthlong block of this IP conflicted with another 24 hour block. I unblocked and reblocked for your original month, citing you, but would you mind checking it and making sure the IP really is properly blocked? Never actually done this before. . . Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another User:68.73.121.85 making the same reverts. Arbustoo 09:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.252.176.158. Pay attention to his postings about the people who banned his IP to "silence" him. Arbustoo 02:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newest puppet User:UserFromIP68. Arbustoo 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Sure, I'm willing to take the case, provided it is, as usual, centric on behaviour and not content, and also that it can happen through email. If they accept me as mediator, let me know. --Improv 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

garbage collection

I've loved your help on ?-? and I would like to ask you to consider voting in this poll, if you will:

talk:gmail/vote#garbage collection

Thanks for your time!

--Cacumer 06:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help, but I have a strict policy of staying out of issues on articles, especailly where I don't really know what's going on. However, if I can be of help by closing a vote or something, let me know! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can help closing that voting! It is going on for a long time. I mean, I don't know who can closes votes, I'm still learning wikipedia organization, but if you can, that would be great!

I would also love to talk to some expert to learn better how the voting works, in general.

--Cacumer 07:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewelcome

I've already been welcomed[[User:Daniel O|DanielO [[User Talk:Daniel O|my talk]]]] 16:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure...

I'll take the East Sea mediation (on-wiki). I'm going to bed tonight, but I'll introduce myself to them tomorrow. Ral315 (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Depleted uranium and related articles

I've offered to mediate on the chemical and epidemiological aspects of this dispute, which is now the subject of a request for arbitration: in the event of the parties accepting mediation (which they have already done once), would you object to me setting up a [[Wikipedia:Request for mediation/*]] page? I think a more formal environment would be essential to getting any solution to stick. Physchim62 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is at RfAr, we can't do much, but if there is something we can mediate, then it's fine. The parties need to make the request; have them file it (according to the {{RFMR}} format) at RfM. Once they've done that, and all have agreed to mediation, you can leave a note saying you're willing to mediate it, and I'll assign it to you, as long as none of the parties object. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re CheckUser

I've sent the results to Jimmy, Danny and Patrick. He has used only one IP address which has been used by no other user within the scope of our logs. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: happy first edit day

Thank you very much for the happy first edit day notice. As for you, happy almost 10,000th edit day and a belated happy first edit day! Once again, thanks! --M @th wiz 20 20 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservatism mediation

Hello, suddenly the request for mediation for the neoconservatism article was erased. I looked at the edit history, and it appears that you accepted the request for mediation. Is there anything additional I should do now, besides, of course, participate in the mediation? Thanks very much, Hydriotaphia 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subpage at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neoconservatism; put it on your watchlist, as further notes will be left there. I'll assign a mediator before too long (I'm running a bit short, as we've taken a lot of cases lately) and the mediator will contact you all to let you know s/he has been assigned and that the mediaton will begin. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba mediation

Hi Essjay. Just reporting in. Some of the developments since I last wrote:

The party that had accepted me as a mediator on a trial basis has agreed to continue to have me play the role of mediator.
The parties have agreed that per the Verifiability Policy, the 'best' source of information to include in an article is not necessarily the most up-to-date or accurate source, but is rather a source that has been deemed credible by an appropriate community of experts. One of the parties has accepted this with a heavy heart, and perhaps disagrees that it should be policy. (The use of sources which have only been published on advocacy websites has been a significant point of contention between the parties.)
The mediation has slowed significantly. In part this may be due to one of the parties becoming more involved (or renewing his involvement) in other articles.
A personal disappointment that I have is that I have so far been unable to motivate the parties to spend as much effort improving the articles as I would wish.

I think that covers the highlights. If you have any questions, let me know. --BostonMA 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're doing a good job...Consider applying for the committee when this one concludes if you'd like to do more. :-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check

Hi, Mister Jay, since you're the first administrator I came to know, I summon your help.

Page Mikho Mosulishvili is obviously an autobiography by User:Mikho Mosulishvili. This user had also made some questionable edits. User:D.Papuashvili (see their talk page), a native Georgian, has voiced that he had never heard of this self-claimed writer. I implore your eminent power for its speedy deletion.

User:195.195.47.18 has committed vandalism aplenty. I ask to block it. MarkBeer 02:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed the article for deletion, report the IP at WP:AIV, where there are administrators active 24/7 to block vandalism. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Cameronian a member of a mediation committee?

A user, User:Cameronian has represented himself as a member of a mediation committee. I do not find his name on a list of mediators. Can you tell me if he has any recognized status in dispute mediation? Kd4ttc 15:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of him. I would expect a Mediation Cabal member to know the difference between Medaition Comittee (which is an official committee) and the Mediation Cabal (which is completely unofficial), so I doubt he is a member of that either. I've left him a note to explain immediatly or face a block. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. There is a talk going on at Talk:Irritable bowel syndrome where an anon later Sarastro777 has been arguing for more coverage of acupuncture in IBS. The medical folks (me included) have been obstructing that due verifiability issues. The user seems a newbie so I and others are not thinking much of it, but the user comes and adds a statement that a mediator has weighed in. On investigation I see it is Cameronian who replies to me he is on a committee. The decision was so unWikipedia-like that I looked further and eventually ended up bringing this to your attention. I appreciate your looking into this. It would be bizarre, but is it possible that the anon initially at 70.95.199.228 who is now Sarastro777 or another anon at 64.186.246.122 are using Cameronian as a sock puppet? Kd4ttc 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is possible. If I don't see a very good explaination on his part very soon, he's going to find himself blocked with a strong warning never to impersonate an official Wikipedia position again, and if I catch him doing it again, I'll have him before the Arbitration Committee. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Problem

I'm trying to upload a new version of the picture at right. But, after I do, I go back to the image page and it shows the old version. The old version is the one showing wikipedia.org and the new one is the one showing the code. I've tried uploading several times and now the box with the old versions is cluttered. WikiY ^Talk

E-Mail 02:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

File:VB2005exp.png

OK WikiY ^{Talk E-Mail} 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies

And how will a newbie know what "ANI" is? See: [2] :-) --Cberlet 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as biting; the user was mentioned on AN here for actions that suggest he is not quite a new user (the latest sockpuppet of a long-term user, perhaps, but not a new user). I'm sorry if my response sounded like newbie biting; I don't believe it was, although it might qualify as sockpuppet biting. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, a sockpuppet bite is not out of bounds... What's an "ANI?"--Cberlet 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange new user

Hi Essjay, could you review the somewhat strange edits of this user:

Eldon_hoke (talk · contribs)

I have nothing against this user, yet, but his edits do seem odd. He seems to be doing a "report" for something that involves a previous user on Wikipedia, Metalingust. The only known time I came in contact with Metalingust was when he vandalized and I guess thats why Eldon hoke contacted me. He contacted me to request the IP address of Metalingust. I told him I didn't know, and I couldn't tell him. After that, his last edit was a personal attack directed towards me for not responding to his message. Can you take a look? Moe ε (the artist formerly known as SWD316) 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warned about the personal attack, and directed to the privacy policy with regard to the IP information. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D Moe ε 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request an unbiased mediator

Biased Mediator

There is a mediation on the page Neoconservatism. On Talk:Neoconservatism, the apparent mediator just posted this:

I'm well aware of your constant use of this resource to push your far left anti conservative viewpoints....so don't challenge me.--MONGO 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request an unbiased mediator.--Cberlet 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

When CBerlet posts goading and loaded commentary such as: "Not a good start, Mongo, you restored a version with the same text that is even more POV than the version written by Ben Houston. The version you restored--supported by [User:Jacrosse|Jacrosse]], begins with "Many believe that the neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad, often by force, parallels the Trotskyist dream of permanent revolution." The version by Ben Houston at least attributes that phrase to actual cites. You could not have possibly read the text you restored. If you are not able to provide an even-handed mediation you should recuse yourself. Shame on you--Cberlet 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" it should be expected that due to his history of editing articles that are the opposite of his political inclination that he would be capable of a NPOV stance. Look at both sides of the coin. My edit ensured that the cited refernces that are clearly POV were eliminated. The entire passge should go, but I at least tried to make it more neutral by eliminating the references from antiwar.com --MONGO 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lest we not also see that CBerlet appears to be unwilling to compromise with an edit summary like this: [3]...indicating IMHO that he will do as he pleases until the mediation commences. Why not protect the page before he violates 3RR.--MONGO 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Spring, Texas

Wow. Quite an RFC, eh? Happyjoe appears to be using anonymizing proxies to hit the page from IPs all over the world; do you think semiprotection is in order? Thanks for your help. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike; I just sprotected it. If you catch any other socks, tag them as {{sockpuppet|Ohnoitsjayme}} so everything will match. Hopefully, now that he can't edit the RfC, he'll go away, but if not, we have plenty of people around to block him. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies

Ah yes, I wasn't aware that was actually a proxy. I'm very curious...how did you know I blocked that address? You must be sitting somewhere with a monitor open...I think you can double to be a computer engineer as well? :-) --129.97.229.23 10:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're HappyCamper logged out; yeah, I'm watching that page, since it's become a list of open proxies. I'm scanning them as I see them and blocking them indef. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

86.10.231.219 blocking

You blocked the above user. Can you supply the page blanking, addition of random text, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, you mentioned? I am curious about these sort of trangressions, and was observing his actions, so would like to see the examples. Thanks. john 11:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments from AN/I, as well as his harassment of User:Thsgrn. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]